dersigned thinks, hardly sufficient ground for so heavy an imputation. The capture having taking place on the 6th of August, (not the 7th as stated by Lord Aberdeen,) both the depositions are in that respect of course inaccurate; but it is in a point of no prejudice to the captors, nor benefit to the deponents or their cause. Had they combined to swear to a false account, they would not have differed in details of this kind, nor would they have assigned a wrong day to the capture. The deposition was sent to the undersigned not in the original, but in a copy apparently written in haste and containing, either for that reason or the rapidity with which it was taken down before the magistrate, several clerical errors. The undersigned is disposed to think that the words "on the ninth" in the deposition of Joshua Doughty should read "in the month." This would remove the only point of contradiction between the brothers, and leave no error in reference to the date, but that of "July" for "August," an error for which the undersigned is unable to account, but which from its nature cannot well be other than inadvertent.

The report of Mr. Davenport, the collector, is itself not wholly free from contradiction in some important points. He observes in the earlier portion of it that the Argus was brought into Sydney in the morning of the seventh of August as was the fact, but in the last paragraph he says that this took place on the night of the seventh; and after having detailed at length in the body of his statement the transactions of the 8th instant, he adverts in its conclusion to an incident which, as he says, took place "later on the 9th than the events I have narrated." The undersigned by no means points out these errors for the sake of impeaching the general character of Mr. Davenport's statement, but to show that similar errors on the part of the Doughtys are not conclusive proof of wilful misrepresentation and falsehood. As far as Mr. Dodd's conduct is concerned, the greatest inaccuracy of the deposition of the Doughtys consists in ascribing to him what was done by order of Mr. Davenport, the collector of Sydney. It appears by Mr. Davenport's statement that these orders were not given by him in person, but by a "waiter or searcher." The undersigned thinks that it is very much the custom of officers of this class in delivering orders not to describe very particularly from what superior functionary the orders emanate; and it seems natural that these uninformed fishermen, the Doughtys, might have supposed that the orders brought them to quit their vessel and the prohibition to remove any of her stores with them, proceeded from the officer by whom the capture was made. The undersigned sees no bad motive which they could have had in ascribing to Mr. Dodd what was done by Mr. Davenport. Their doing so may argue ignorance and carelessness, but not necessary malice.

It is worthy of remark that Mr. Dodd does not, with one exception, seem to discredit the statement of the Doughtys as to what took place before there was any opportunity to fall into this confusion, that is, after the capture and before the bringing into port, although that portion of their statement contains a report of Mr. Dodd's observations about what is called the "annexation document," and his having seized the vessel in order to settle a question under a treaty, which if incorrectly alleged, it may be thought he could hardly have failed to contradict. Mr. Dodd states, indeed, that it was impossible that the master of the Argus as asserted by the deponents, could have thought himself outside the line drawn from Cape North to the head of Cow bay, because if he had so thought he would have

gone to trial against the captors at Halifax. But Lord Aberdeen is aware that it is one of the grievances which the government of the United States has had repeatedly to complain of, and which was prominently brought forward in connection with this very capture by the undersigned in his letter of the 9th of October, that no defence can be made in such a suit without giving security in $300, besides encountering the delay and the heavy expenses of court. After adverting to this fact, the consul at Halifax in his letter of 19th August, which was sent by the undersigned to Lord Aberdeen with his note of 9th October, adds, "so that, generally speaking, it is better to let the suit go by default and purchase the vessel after condemnation."

Mr. Dodd on this subject proceeds to say, that "all on board the Argus were too well satisfied of their liability and of their having violated the treaty which excludes them from our shores, to have asked the test of an examination as witnesses in the case, and therefore they abandoned the attempt as useless." But not to dwell on the circumstance that Mr. Dodd himself opposes no specific contradiction to the assertion of the Doughtys that he stated that he made the capture "to settle the question" as to the construction of the treaty, it is not to be conceived that he should be so uninformed on this subject as not to know that not merely on the part of the fishermen as a body, but on that of their government, the validity of the British construction of the treaty has always been contested, and that if the fishermen of the United States forbear to act on the construction which their own government has ever maintained, it is simply to avoid capture by the provincial armed vessels.

Admitting that the Doughtys may innocently have thought that the orders which were brought by "the searcher" proceeded not from the collector but from the officer who captured the vessel, the undersigned does not find in this statement itself much further discrepancy from the admissions of Mr. Davenport, than may always be expected between the representations of an officer of intelligence justifying his conduct to his superiors, and those of ignorant men telling their story to their employers under a strong sense of recent loss and oppression.

Mr. Davenport in one point makes a charge against the Doughtys for which there is no foundation in their narrative. He says, "the crew of the Argus remained on board that vessel from the time she was brought into port, the night of the 7th of August to about mid-day of the 8th, and therefore the story about their removal in fifteen minutes is not correct." But the Doughtys expressly mention that the crew of the Argus remained on board from the time the vessel was brought in on the morning of the 7th till ten o'clock of the 8th. The "fifteen minutes" ran from the time the order was given to leave the vessel, not from their arrival in port, and without any reference to the deposition of the Doughtys, the undersigned would infer from the statement of the collector himself, that after the inventory was taken on the morning of the 8th, the crew were peremptorily required to quit the vessel; and as her "stores were included in the inventory, it is equally plain that they were not permitted to carry the means of subsistence away with them. It appears from his own report that Mr. Davenport, even when urged to do so by Mr. Dodd, refused to relax in any degree the rigor of the law towards those whom he thinks proper to designate as the hostile crew of the Argus.

The conduct of Mr. Dodd, in endeavoring to procure from the collector

permission for these poor fishermen to stay on board their own vessel another day, (for it must be remembered she was not yet judicially proceeded against, and that therefore in the humane intendment of the law her master was as yet innocent of its violation,) was certainly kind, and his furnishing, unsolicited, a gratuitous passage to Halifax for the captain of the Argus and two of his crew, still more so; although this was not done, as Lord Aberdeen appears to be under the impression," after the condemnation of the vessel," but before the commencement of any judicial proceeding against her. It was, however, not the less meritorious, and the undersigned sincerely regrets the injustice done him in the deposition of the Doughtys. Could he now deem that injustice wilful, or should it on further inquiry so appear, the undersigned would not fall behind Lord Aberdeen in his emphatic reprobation of it.

The undersigned hopes, however, that the foregoing suggestions will lead Lord Aberdeen to a judgment somewhat more favorable on that point. That the depositions of the Doughtys were given under feelings of great irritation is quite evident. This furnishes no excuse for exaggeration and mis-statement; still less does it palliate falsehood and perjury. Of these crimes the undersigned is inclined to think them innocent; and Lord Aberdeen will agree with him in regarding some coloring in statements made under imaginary wrong, as almost inseparable from human frailty.

In this case the undersigned is constrained to add that in the judgment of the government of the United States the wrong was real and extreme, not in the harsh treatment on the part of the capturing officer, (a charge against Mr. Dodd to which no prominence was originally given by the undersigned, which he has much pleasure in abandoning, and should have had none in being able to substantiate,) but in the essential injustice of the colonial law, which that gentleman and the collector were employed in enforcing. It cannot need an argument to show that while a question is in discussion between her Majesty's government and that of the United States, and is even, as appears by Lord Aberdeen's note to the undersigned, under reference to legal authorities, an enactment of the provincial legislature purporting to decide said question to themselves, and enforcing that desision by capture and condemnation, possesses none of the qualities of the law of civilized States but its forms.

The undersigned sincerely hopes that he has not erred in believing that the recent determination of her Majesty's government, communicated by a separate note of Lord Aberdeen of the 10th instant, may be intended to receive such a construction as will furnish a final and effectual remedy of this grievance.

The undersigned requests the Earl of Aberdeen to accept the assurance of his high consideration.

EDWARD EVERETT.

[No. 305.]

Mr. Everett to Mr. Buchanan.

LONDON, April 23, 1845. SIR: With my despatch, No. 278, of 25th March, I transmitted the note of Lord Aberdeen, of the 10th of March, communicating the important information that this government had come to the determination to concede to American fishermen the right of pursuing their occupation within the Bay of Fundy. It was left somewhat uncertain by Lord Aberdeen's note whether this concession was intended to be confined to the Bay of Fundy, or to extend to other portions of the coast of the Anglo-American possessions, to which the principles contended for by the government of the United States, equally apply, and particularly to the waters on the northeastern shores of Cape Breton, where the "Argus" was captured. In my notes of the 25th ultimo and 2d instant, on the subject of the "Washington" and the "Argus," I was careful to point out to Lord Aberdeen that all the reasons for admitting the right of Americans to fish in the Bay of Fundy, apply to those waters, and with superior force, inasmuch as they are less landlocked than the Bay of Fundy, and to express the hope that the concession was meant to extend to them, which there was some reason to think, from the mode in which Lord Aberdeen expressed himself, was the case.

I received last evening, the answer of his lordship, informing me that my two notes had been referred to the colonial office, and that a final reply could not be returned till he should be made acquainted with the result of that reference, and that, in the mean time, the concession must be understood to be limited to the Bay of Fundy.

The merits of the question are so clear that I cannot but anticipate that the decision of the colonial office will be in favor of the liberal construction of the convention. In the mean time I beg leave to suggest, that in any public notice which may be given that the Bay of Fundy is henceforth open to American fishermen, it should be carefully stated that the extension of the same privilege to the other great bays on the coasts of the AngloAmerican dependencies, is a matter of negotiation between the two govern

ments.

I am, sir, with great respect, your obedient servant,

JAMES BUCHANAN, Esq.

EDWARD EVERETT.

Secretary of State.

The Earl of Aberdeen to Mr. Everett.

FOREIGN OFFICE, April 21, 1845.

The undersigned, her Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the two notes which Mr. Everett, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America, addressed to him on the 25th ultimo and on the 2d instant, relative to the case of the Argus, and that of the Washington, United States' fishing vessels.

Those notes have been brought under the consideration of her Majesty's

Secretary of State for the colonies, and the undersigned postpones, therefore, replying to their contents, until he shall have become acquainted with the results of that reference.

In the meantime, however, the undersigned thinks it expedient to guard himself against the assumption of Mr. Everett, that it may have been his intention by his note of the 10th ultimo, to include other bays on the coasts of the British North American provinces, in the relaxation which he therein notified to Mr. Everett, as to be applied henceforward to the Bay of Fundy. That note was intended to refer to the Bay of Fundy alone.

The undersigned avails himself of this opportunity to renew to Mr. Everett the assurances of his high consideration.

Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Bancroft.

ABERDEEN.

[No. 5.]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, December 10, 1846.

SIR: I have the honor to transmit to you herewith, at the instance of the Hon. D. P. King, of the House of Representatives of the United States, certain orignal and other documents from the files of this office, relating to the cases of the American fishing schooners "Director," E. Haskell, master, and "Pallas," Job Denner, master, both of Rockport, Massachusetts.

These vessels were seized in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in the autumn of 1840, by the British revenue cutter "John and Louisa Wallace," Stephens, master, for an alleged trespass upon British fishing grounds, carried into Nova Scotian ports, and ultimately, under circumstances set forth in the accompanying papers, wholly lost to their owners.

An examination of the records of the United States legation in London for some years past, will show you that cases of a similar character have not unfrequently occurred heretofore, and have formed the subject of complaints to the British government. It will also show you the result of these applications in behalf of the owners and others interested in American vessels engaged in the fisheries thus vexatiously seized by the British. provincial authorities.

If, after a careful perusal and consideration of the correspondence referred to, and of the documents now sent, you shall be of opinion that the cases of the "Director" and "Pallas," or either of them, might now, under all the circumstances, be presented to the British government with a reasonable hope of a satisfactory decision on its part, you are authorized to invite Lord Palmerston's attention to them in such terms as you may judge best calculated to secure the ends of justice.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

GEORGE BANCROFT, Esq., &c., &c.

Ex.-9.

JAMES BUCHANAN.